PZ never really attained the height necessary for "falling". He had a popular blog, which has now dwindled. Dawkins was the only one of the 4H to be said to have "scouted" him, and even his interest fell off as he became more familiar with his MO. I'm not sure Hitchens even knew who he was; I'm not sure Dennet even knows who he is; and of course Sam Harris hates his guts.

To me, PZ is a moderate talent witch deep daddy issues who shacked up with feminists because he fears and hates threatening males, and .... well, isn't that enough?

There are 28 exhibits in total, but most of them are just PDF versions of the allegedly defamatory blog/Facebook posts, and records showing that cease and desist letters were delivered to and received by the various parties. The ones above are the only ones that seem at all interesting.

Kirbmarc wrote:Atheist laughed at his antics when he was yelling at creationists and desecrating books. We didn't notice that there was no substance behind the bitchy attitude until he sided with the SJWs. Myers is an intellectual lightweight compared to the Four Horsemen, especially to Hitchens. Hitchens was abrasive and direct, but he backed up his claims and knew how to argue. Peezie only knows how to rant: his biggest contribution as a logical argument was the Courtier's Reply, and it's wasn't even his to begin with.

I've started reading Peez around his biggest spats with creationalists but his novelty was wearing quickly and I dropped his blog from my rotation even before he rode the proverbial elevator. He's not only miss the intellectual muscle Hitch had, he also super charmless. I didn't agree with Hitch in everything but if someone said he can get me a dinner with him on a condition he can only talk about things we disagree on I'd be buying plane tickets in a second.

I don't think I wanted to meet Peez even in his hey-days. He never intrigued me, his blog was just a funny comment on Slashdot, I can chuckle but that's about my level of interaction with the author.

some guy wrote:[
You obviously didn't read the complaint. It's got sticky all over it.

No but I looked over it. ...

So as I said, you obviously didn't read the complaint. Yeah, a lawyer probably tweeked and packaged the verbiage into a *somewhat* coherent legally sufficient complaint, but there is little doubt about the source of many of the descriptive passages. (Which would be obvious to anyone here who has RTFC.)

There are 28 exhibits in total, but most of them are just PDF versions of the allegedly defamatory blog/Facebook posts, and records showing that cease and desist letters were delivered to and received by the various parties. The ones above are the only ones that seem at all interesting.

The response letter from Skepticon's lawyer aligns with my layman's understanding of libel laws. Carrier has no case. I'd love to see Carrier ordered to pay Skepticon's legal fees after this is all over.

Kirbmarc wrote:A Thunderfoot video on Youtube "Heroes", the new way that Youtube has to give pathetic incentives to people to flag video/add or remove tags/influence searches for them for free by calling them "Heroes"

Someone on Reddit called this very accurately. I don't think as many do that this is some nefarious scheme by Google to promote censorship. It's just another in a long line of companies tricking their userbase into working for them for free, and especially to do the sort of work that automation can't yet handle (think along the lines of Captcha using people to teach computers how to recognize and differentiate objects in photographs). What's especially galling is them touting beta feature access as a prize. "Hey, idiot, do a bunch of unpaid work for us and we'll let you do even MORE unpaid work testing our buggy software before release!"

d4m10n wrote:
Islam doesn't get to set the parameters of discourse here in the free west. The matter was settled in 1789.

As should be known to anyone with any knowlege of US history, nothing was 'settled' in 1789, even if you ignore all the attacks on the Constitution since 1931, and esp since 2001.

I don't believe the mention of 1789 is supposed to refer to US history. À bas ceux qui fessée jeunes filles japonaises! À la guillotine!

And with respect to the excellent news about Dr Carrier, I am quite sure that both sides realise that neither of them will have any worthwhile reputation after a couple of days in court. This will end with an bare-minimum apology and a sealed settlement involving a small amount of money. Carrier will crow about his victory and FTB etc will do the same. All the same, it will be a joy to watch. Self-destruction is the saddest kind of destruction, and engenders top notch schadenfreude.

March of 1789 was when the US Constitution was ratified and hence, came into effect.
I don't think anything was 'settled' in France in 1789. After all, Napoleonic law and a temporary restoration of the Monarchy was in the future.

There are 28 exhibits in total, but most of them are just PDF versions of the allegedly defamatory blog/Facebook posts, and records showing that cease and desist letters were delivered to and received by the various parties. The ones above are the only ones that seem at all interesting.

The response letter from Skepticon's lawyer aligns with my layman's understanding of libel laws. Carrier has no case. I'd love to see Carrier ordered to pay Skepticon's legal fees after this is all over.

That letter also hints they may countersue for breach of contract - for contravening the policy on harrassment he had agreed to on joining the speaker' bureau.

Really? wrote:Haaa! Looks like Shermer may have kicked in an assist after all:

32 On information and belief, in oraround August 2013, Defendant Myers published and broadcastallegedlyfalse, defamatory, libelous, inaccurate, and misleading statements about another public figure, under similar circumstances, and was the subject of a cease and desist demand.

I can't believe Carrier allowed that in the document, after everything he wrote about Shermer. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Surely the defendants in his case would have enough collective brainpower to do the obvious and cite his own article to show how gung-ho he was at the time.

Clarence wrote:
March of 1789 was when the US Constitution was ratified and hence, came into effect.
I don't think anything was 'settled' in France in 1789. After all, Napoleonic law and a temporary restoration of the Monarchy was in the future.

Thank you; I had not realised it took so long to enshrine the constitution onto law.

There are 28 exhibits in total, but most of them are just PDF versions of the allegedly defamatory blog/Facebook posts, and records showing that cease and desist letters were delivered to and received by the various parties. The ones above are the only ones that seem at all interesting.

The response letter from Skepticon's lawyer aligns with my layman's understanding of libel laws. Carrier has no case. I'd love to see Carrier ordered to pay Skepticon's legal fees after this is all over.

The funniest thing about the whole mess is that the Skepticon lawyer uses Carrier's own statements to argue both that he violated boundaries and that he's a public figure.

Dr. Carrier has himself publicly admitted to being "not as sensitive to the context of power dynamics as I should have been" when initiating sexual relationships with women, and "especially young women"

Dr. Carrier is undoubtedly a public figure or limited-purpose public figure for the purpose of defamation liability in connection with the Post statements. Dr. Carrier's website and Wikipedia page collectively describe him as a "world-renowned author and speaker" in the field of atheism and naturalism who "has frequently been a featured speaker at various skeptic, secular humanist, freethought, and atheist conventions, such as...the annual Skepticon convention"

The intellectually artillery has been hoisted by its own petard. :lol:

Carrier's story about Amy is also changing. He now claims that while Amy's husband had passed out another man touched Amy, who seemed OK with it, and he simply jokes that he wished that he was that man. Also everybody was slightly drunk, talking about sex and Carrier just mentioned in passing that he had a vasectomy and so he had "better stamina during sex" .

He also says that it was Amy who brought up the subject of open marriage and that her husband was against it.

Carrier said that he only expressed interest in Amy and promised to be around if she got divorced; Amy, according to Carrier, smiled and said that she would consider it.

IF this is true (and that's a big IF) then it's clearly not sexual harassment, and hardly even unprofessional. The context seems relaxed, the remarks are innocuous enough and Amy wasn't exactly expressing some discomfort at Carrier's words. Also he apparently never touched her.

He also says that apparently he assumed that the complaint against him in the SSA was about another event, when misjudged a conversation for flirtation, awkwardly said that he''d have liked to make a pass at her, and immediately apologized when the woman expressed obvious discomfort.

He also apparently asked out Heina Dadhabhoy over an email and backed off when she rejected him.

Again, IF all of this is true I don't think that Carrier is a sexual harasser, and IF all of this is true and he broke some SSA rules then those rules are extremely strict.

Of course it's perfectly possible that Carrier might be lying. The Heina emails seem to show that he was pestering her before she told him to fuck off over his "loveletter" so it's perfectly possible that he might have similarly pestered Amy and then lied or (more worryingly) self-servingly re-interpreted his behavior in a better light.

By way those letters to Heina are the funniest shit ever:

Tricky Dicky Carrier wrote:Competence is erotic. And sharing sexual experiences with incredible women like you is what I want out of life. It only adds that you're pretty. Your eyes just melt me. Lots I'd want to kiss on you. But I don't have your permission to go there here, so I'll just leave it at that.

The same world-renowned author as above wrote:You radiate agency. And that's like a brilliant, warm light you want to embrace and experience passionately. I can go on admiring you from afar, as a writer and a colleague and valuable asset to our movement, and I can go on spending excellent time together with you as a friend when we happen to be around each other. I won't be badly dejected by a no.But if there is any chance you want me, I'm hoping to know.

What a poet and a charmer. :lol: Too bad Heina didn't appreciate being called as a third wheel in a possible threesome. :lol:

some guy wrote:[
You obviously didn't read the complaint. It's got sticky all over it.

No but I looked over it. It's a standard legal document. It wasn't written by Carrier. Mostly likely it was written by someone in the employment of Jeffrey T. Perry.

I mean do you really think that Carrier has the skills to right a legal brief? You must actually believe he is the intellectual artillery then.

They did refer to "freethougblogs" several times.

My significant other has been in legal offices her entire career( worked for her dad who was an attorney) and now works for a very large firm in Jersey.

From what I can glean, with the tools available on line it isn't all that difficult to draft fairly competent legal brief these days.( although you need to make sure that it conforms to the practices of the state or county you are in/filing.)

You would not beleive the spelling mistakes on most motions. These thing are drafted and written by people. Spell checkers are a help, but , you also have a lot of technical language which will show errors everywhere where none truly exist. So some do not use them.

It's very possible he could have filed pro se. ( the man does have a doctorate... As he constantly reminds us) going that route can be quite treacherous to the uninitiated unless you have the simplest of cases.

It's like watching a sitcom. Carrier asks Heina to join him in a threesome out of the blue, she says no and he writes her long apologies about how horrible he is. :lol: And she simply says that he annoyed her. :lol:

It's like watching a sitcom. Carrier asks Heina to join him in a threesome out of the blue, she says no and he writes her long apologies about how horrible he is. :lol: And she simply says that he annoyed her. :lol:

His arrogance is a thing of beauty. "Hey, I was about to fuck this chick but maybe you'd go for a threesome?"

It's like watching a sitcom. Carrier asks Heina to join him in a threesome out of the blue, she says no and he writes her long apologies about how horrible he is. :lol: And she simply says that he annoyed her. :lol:

His arrogance is a thing of beauty. "Hey, I was about to fuck this chick but maybe you'd go for a threesome?"

I have never seen such a blatant example of phallic privledge, tank rape culture, and plane patriarchy!

You mother-intercourser!. Now I will be banned from all Skepticon's, forever, and the Orbit and FTB will never offer me a blog spot. I am going to talk to Carrier's lawyer and sue you for, I'm thinking, oh lets round it off to 2 million dollars. Yeah, that will teach you. You've just been A10 Warthog fucked into the ground.

2mil would put a dent in my trust fund... No more designer kind bud for me...

Wait! I propose a compromise!

The picture of the shell next to the beer bottle gives me an idea....
We could crowdsource funds to develop a "marital aid" ...we could call it the " Big Bang!"

Or we could just take the money and piss it away on hookers and blow and call it research....

Skepticon wrote:DONATIONS = CONFERENCE
by Bluebecca | Sep 24, 2016
Team Skepticon would like to remind everyone that ALL donations go to the conference and ONLY to the conference. If Skepticon ever needs funds for anything else, our team will work to obtain them in another way, or will be very up front about where those particular donations go.
We thank everyone for their support to keep Skepticon the largest FREE skeptic conference in the nation!
Love,
Team Skepticon

Does that mean that Skepticon did not pay a lawyer for that response that they sent? Was it probono? Did someone else pay the lawyer to represent Skepticon? Is the verbage on the 24th misleading people concerned about donations for the conference going to the Carrier lawsuit into thinking their funds will not go to that, yet the Skepticon staff view defense of the Skepticon a critical part of continuing the conference? Or is that just a statement of what they will do going forward? Surely Skepticon should have some sort of legal representation given that Carrier has initiated a 2 million dollar lawsuit against them.

Kirbmarc wrote:Par on course with WMDKitty. She believes that accusations are evidence and that Shermer is a "confirmed rapist", so of course she thinks that Carrier is guilty too just because he's been accused. WMDKitty is the kind of person who probably believed that Bill Nye was a sexual predator back when someone told PZ in private that he was.

Now let me guess. I bet WMDKitty DOES NOT believe the allegations against PZ Myers?

CommanderTuvok wrote:Now let me guess. I bet WMDKitty DOES NOT believe the allegations against PZ Myers?

S/h/it read about the allegations coming from a man. S/h/it can never trust what a man says. Since s/h/it read about it from a man it has pass through an unreliablity filter and therefore cannot be believed.

Can anyone imagine the Richard Carrier's writings on spooge & choking women being read out by Carrier to a jury to help substantiate that Carrier already had a poor reputation in the Atheist Skeptic community and that the writings by others could in no way sink his reputation any lower?

I like the fact that he's asking for a trial by jury. I would LOVE to see him deposed, and in the witness box.

I wanted Carrier to demand a trial by combat. He against PZ.

By the way, this is the lawyer that Skepticon contacted to write a letter to Carrier's lawyer. I don't think that her fees are cheap.

Interesting facts: she's the first woman who is a vice chair in the Republican party (!!)'s history and she's a very religious Sikh. Not someone who you'd think would do pro-bono work for a Skeptic association.

Or we could limit "refugee" immigration and avoid the whole violence thing altogether. Or at least keep it down to reasonable levels.

Why is refugee in scare quotes? Do you doubt that people living in Syria and the Levant are sincere in their desire to flee the Islamic State?

I can't answer for deLurch, but only about 50-55% of the current influx of refugees comes from Syria to my knowledge. Then there's a contingent from Afghanistan (which is not technically at war), relatively few from Iraq, and the rest is the usual suspects: Morocco, Tunisia, Somalia, Sudan etc.

BTW, I love how in typical SJW fashion, they can't just say "no, not interested" or "thanks, but no thanks", but have to keep on and keep on clarifying positions and intentions, almost as if they are consulting some type of SJW checklist of procedures. No wonder I fucking despise these fuckers.

Lsuoma wrote:
I like the fact that he's asking for a trial by jury. I would LOVE to see him deposed, and in the witness box.

I wanted Carrier to demand a trial by combat. He against PZ.

By the way, this is the lawyer that Skepticon contacted to write a letter to Carrier's lawyer. I don't think that her fees are cheap.

Interesting facts: she's the first woman who is a vice chair in the Republican party (!!)'s history and she's a very religious Sikh. Not someone who you'd think would do pro-bono work for a Skeptic association.

Doesn't joining forces with a Republican make Skepticon the bad guys by default?

BTW, I love how in typical SJW fashion, they can't just say "no, not interested" or "thanks, but no thanks", but have to keep on and keep on clarifying positions and intentions, almost as if they are consulting some type of SJW checklist of procedures. No wonder I fucking despise these fuckers.

SJWs are utopians. In their ideal society a woman is never to be made uncomfortable or even "annoyed at worst". They want to live in a world where people are viciously punished for stepping over a social boundary, and the viciousness is justified because the person couldn't have possibly not known they were stepping over a social boundary in that instance. It doesn't take but a moment of thought to see this project can only be realized if you codify the entirety of human interaction. You end up with hysterical scenarios like Carrier responding line-by-line, litigation-style, to a woman who basically just told him to fuck off when after he asked for sex. It's autism and cluster B personality disorders all the way down.

BTW, I love how in typical SJW fashion, they can't just say "no, not interested" or "thanks, but no thanks", but have to keep on and keep on clarifying positions and intentions, almost as if they are consulting some type of SJW checklist of procedures. No wonder I fucking despise these fuckers.

SJWs are utopians. In their ideal society a woman is never to be made uncomfortable or even "annoyed at worst". They want to live in a world where people are viciously punished for stepping over a social boundary, and the viciousness is justified because the person couldn't have possibly not known they were stepping over a social boundary in that instance. It doesn't take but a moment of thought to see this project can only be realized if you codify the entirety of human interaction. You end up with hysterical scenarios like Carrier responding line-by-line, litigation-style, to a woman who basically just told him to fuck off when after he asked for sex. It's autism and cluster B personality disorders all the way down.

The interesting thing is that Heina didn't seem too bothered, but Carrier groveled and whined at how horrible he was. Male feminists seem to be forced to signal their virtue loudly and at length, and it doesn't help them one bit when it comes to accusations of bad behavior.

I think that this is actually a context which fosters bad sexual behavior instead of inhibiting it. If you're damned and forced to feel guilty no matter what you do you are likely to eventually snap and lash out.

I'm not surprised that many male feminists are creeps. Why would a healthy person put up with so much guilt and shame?

Kirbmarc wrote:
The interesting thing is that Heina didn't seem too bothered, but Carrier groveled and whined at how horrible he was. Male feminists seem to be forced to signal their virtue loudly and at length, and it doesn't help them one bit when it comes to accusations of bad behavior.

Reminds me of Steve Shives, or that Arthur Cho pillock on Twitterz. Always flagellating themselves and their fellow men in pursuit of SJW brownie points.

Hunt wrote:I kind of sense that PZ has been a little more circumspect about bluffing his way out of this one with Carrier, and it seems that is coming to pass. It's not that Carrier is a legal rock star or has any better a case than Shermer had, it's that Carrier knows how much they're relying on apathy and bluffing. Also Shermer had everything to lose and really nothing to gain. The opposite is true with Carrier. So he's probably going to continue the process. That alone is more than PZ, et. al. want to bother with. In short, I think they may have really stepped in it this time.

That's my impression, too, but it leaves open the question of how far Carrier can take it before his money runs out.

Kirbmarc wrote:I just noticed that Lauren Lane offered sex to Carrier in exchange for him writing her a letter of recommendation for grad school.

Isn't that illegal? Or at the very least unethical?

To me, this makes her the first victim of all this, even if it was self-inflicted. If that letter gets around, it's a career-killer. (The same would go for Carrier if he had a career to lose.) I can't think of a law against it, but, in my world, it's one of the few things that can cost you tenure.